Spam Blocked

The heyday of this blog was a few years ago when I had my hands less full of things to do, thus more time to write. I don’t post new blog articles as much as I used to. Imagine my surprise to see that my blog traffic is actually on the rise despite my relative silence. I guess people are really, really, really interested in the elections this cycle. When I look to see what is driving traffic to Buckeye RINO, I see people are digging up my endorsements in past election cycles, particularly in races lower on the ballot than the race for POTUS. I’m sorry all you readers who came to Buckeye RINO only to find news about years past and very little about this year.

For this primary election, the only local endorsement I’ll make is that I support Michele Silva Arredondo for Lorain County Common Pleas Court judge on the GOP ballot. I’ll remain silent on all the other local and state races.

In the GOP race for POTUS, I endorse John Kasich, and in the Democrat race, I endorse Bernie Sanders.

I’ve been hesistant to endorse a GOP candidate for U.S. President. In a blog article much earlier on in this election cycle, I chronicled how no candidate in either party excited me, and this is still the case. It seemed to me, on the GOP side, that as soon as I pick a favorite, my favorite drops out and then I have to search out another favorite, so I hope my endorsement, at this date, is not the kiss of death for John Kasich. For a while, I favored Bobby Jindal, then Rand Paul, then Carly Fiorina, then Ben Carson. Each has exited the stage.

I’ve had some beefs with Kasich. If you dig through Buckeye RINO, you’ll see some of my criticisms. But when I reflect upon my biggest disagreements with Kasich as governor, a number of those disagreements are about education. Education is a big issue when one is governor, but there are bigger fish to fry as President of the United States, one of which is the national debt that has our nation perched atop a crumbling economic precipice. Kasich balances budgets. Yes, it took government shutdowns during the Clinton administration to force the White House to accept the budgets, but it stuck. Ted Cruz has caused government shutdowns in the name of good fiscal policy, too, but Cruz doesn’t know how to remain friends within his own caucus. With Kasich’s government shutdowns, his colleagues were still his friends, which means that Kasich is better poised to identify a Congressional coalition that will help him govern as U.S. President.

Cruz actually made me angry when his staff pulled a stunt during the Iowa caucuses claiming that Ben Carson was dropping out. Cruz operatives apparently pulled the same stunt this past Tuesday in Hawaii at the expense of Marco Rubio. In these and other instances of dirty tricks, Cruz was very lawyerly in defending his campaign. How Clintonesque. What a turnoff.

See the little search window at the top of the left sidebar on Buckeye RINO? If you type in the search term “gambling,” you’ll see that I despise gambling. Trump, being the casino tycoon that he is, wasn’t likely to get my nod for nominee, anyway. Also, I have decried religious intolerance before, so when both Cruz and Trump harp on and on against Muslims, they are not winning any points with me. As for the flap about Trump somehow being in cahoots with the KKK, I think that’s all manufactured by the desperate. I fail to see past Trump conduct that fits with this seemingly manufactured narrative. If I see conduct from Trump in the future that smacks of racism, I’d be happy to call it out, but I fail to see such a pattern thus far.

Marco Rubio has revealed himself to be a candidate of the donor class, not a candidate of the grassroots.

Having said all of that, in November, I’ll vote for any of the Republicans over Hillary Clinton, should she be the Democrat nominee.

Democrat voters in 2008 made the right decision in nominating Barack Obama, notwithstanding I voted against him in November of 2008 and 2012. Yes, I disagree with much (but not all) that our current POTUS has done and is trying to do. Some have said he’s the worst president in history, but I’d have to disagree. There’ve been worse. Hillary Clinton, had she won it all in 2008, would have been worse. Bernie Sanders would be a far more ethical, far less corrupt president than Hillary Clinton would.

DOJ politicized under Obama? You bet. IRS politicized under Obama? You bet. But while Obama claimed that the IRS was a phony scandal perpetrated by a bad actor or two with no connection to the White House, I could easily envision an emboldened President Hillary Clinton issuing a charge to the DOJ and the IRS to take down the “vast right-wing conspiracy” that menaces her and the country (or at least menaces her plans for the country). With Obama, there’s denial. With Clinton, she’d be justifying it.

One may wonder: How can a right-of-center blogger favor Obama and Sanders over Clinton when they are further to the political left than Clinton? My reply would be that I sense that Hillary is capable of far more heinous treachery. U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren is further to the left of Clinton, too, but if I had a choice between Warren and Clinton, I’d take Warren. As for Sanders’ socialism, I would just note that the political pendulum swings back and forth. Socialism won’t take firm root before it is out of vogue again. In the meantime, Sanders is more honest than our current president, more honest than many of the GOP candidates, and far more honest than Clinton. We could use some cleaning up of Beltway ethics, and I think Sanders could deliver on that front. Depending on the GOP nominee, there is a possibility I could vote for Sanders in November if he were the Democrat nominee. It depends on how dirty politics looks by then and how squeaky-clean Sanders looks by comparison when election time draws near.

A Sanders presidency may clean up corruption, whereas a Clinton presidency will maintain the status quo, letting the corruption continue. You can see it in the New Hampshire Democrat primary exit poll data that showed that it is the privileged Democrats who will benefit from a Clinton presidency. The only group of Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire were those who thought the country was headed in the right direction, who were not worried about the economy, who had not felt betrayed by their government or their political party, and whose annual income exceeded $200,000. Voters in subsequent primaries and caucuses should take note: If you are unhappy with the way things are right now, Hillary is not your candidate. She is there to do the bidding of the privileged Democrats who donate to her: Maintain the status quo. These privileged Clinton Democrats don’t have much in common, demographically, with the rest of the Democrat Party. The Clinton Democrats are the ones who pull all the levers within the party machine (hence the “superdelegates”), they often have prestigious titles working in America’s universities, liberal think tanks, non-profit organizations, and crony-capitalist businesses such as those on Wall Street. These people, if they get in trouble, they get bailed out. That’s who Clinton represents. If that description doesn’t fit you, then you have no business voting for her. Clinton and some media types have said what a wonderful thing the Democrat primary race where voters have two good choices and the candidates see eye-to-eye on most issues. This is a lie. The difference between who Sanders is and what he represents and who Clinton is and what she represents is huge. To me, it is the difference between broad sunlight (Sanders) and a dark alley (Clinton).

When I was a young boy (3rd grade), my career ambition was to be a U.S. Ambassador to France. With that thought in mind, I majored in international studies at Ohio State. Nowadays, my field of specialty is teaching English to speakers of other languages. When I contemplate the death of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, along with the deaths of three others at the hands of terrorists, it gives me chills. The terrorists acted upon information. For all I know, the information the terrorists acted upon came from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for she did not safeguard top-secret information, including information about U.S. assets and personnel abroad. Looking at events leading up to those deaths–where it seems that security vulnerabilities were deliberately overlooked–and looking at events unfold after mischief was clearly afoot in Benghazi–where it seems that the opportunity to evacuate was doable but somehow deliberately nixed–I can only arrive at the conclusion that Stevens’ death was the desired outcome. Was he a man who knew too much? Even if his death were merely due to Clinton’s negligence, rather than malfeasance, it is still too much for me to stomach. If I were a U.S. Ambassador to anywhere, I’d want the U.S. government to have my back.

Hillary Clinton tried to rig the elections in 2008, but Barack Obama outsmarted her. She has outdone herself this time around, with nearly every superdelegate handpicked for their loyalty to her. The election on the Democrat side is rigged. Only rank-and-flle Democrat voters have the power to throw a monkey wrench into her machine, and I hope they’ll do just that.

As for a brokered GOP convention, I do not favor the pandemonium that Mitt Romney seems to invite. If Trump has the delegates, then he’s the nominee. If Trump goes on to lose the election, then the establishment can engage in party-building after that (and get in touch with the grassroots) and make a push for redemption. If Trump goes on to win the election and the establishment still cannot make amends with him and thus will not allow him to be their standard-bearer going forward, then found a new political party and recruit elected Republican legislators across the country to switch to this new party starting in January. If this new party succeeds well enough at this recruitment, it could conceivably enact laws in many states that would grant major-party status to their new creation. If we’re to have a falling out, let’s have it then, after January, in the broad light of day. Make new rules then. Don’t bend and break rules midstream this July in some smoke-filled convention backroom to thwart a vast array of voters.

I hope that Ohio will do the right thing. Kasich for the Republicans. Sanders for the Democrats. Make November a sweeter pill to swallow.

Yeah, the ratings for the Republican presidential campaign debates are through the roof. Yeah, there are lots of choices this time around–and that’s a good thing. That being said, I’m getting frustrated that I can’t identify a candidate I’m excited about. I had a favorable opinion of Bobby Jindal based on how much less corrupt Louisiana state government is than it was before he took office. A record of reform is appealing to me. Jindal, however, is one of four GOP candidates who have dropped out of the race. Lindsey Graham dropped out very recently. Further back, Rick Perry dropped out. Scott Walker was the first to drop out (which made total sense to me). On the Democrat side (not that anybody across the aisle interests me), Jim Webb and Lincoln Chaffee have dropped out. That still leaves 13 Republicans and 3 Democrats in the running:

To get an idea of the lay of the land, I’ve listed the candidates top to bottom in each party to approximate recent polling data (not an exact science to be sure). I’ve linked each name in that list to the corresponding official campaign webpage. Go ahead and click on the links. See if anybody excites you.

Let me list some of the grievances that cause me to cross candidates off my list of preferences:

Crony capitalism? Support for bailouts? Ties to the gambling industry? Ties to businesses “too big to fail?” Pay-to-play politics? Manipulate markets through artificial means to predetermine winners and losers of your own choosing? More beholden to campaign donors than to voters? Sorry, not for me. Oops! I just shoveled a bunch of people off my list already!

Isolationism? Reluctant to propel our nation to lead the world? Fearful of increasing legal immigration? Hey, wake up! People are watching us all around the world. I am mindful of that. We cannot have leaders that bury their heads in the sand.

Dishonesty? Trying to be enigmatic about policy positions? Talking out of both sides of your mouth? Unwilling to be held accountable? Holding double-standards? Dodging culpability through legal technicalities and obfuscation? Lacking integrity? (I’m looking at you, Hillary Clinton. This is why you’d be the last person I’d vote for of either party.)

Lack of leadership? No executive experience? Unable to rally people to your cause? Unable to form coalitions? Unwilling to negotiate with those on the other side of the political aisle? A lone voice in the wilderness that no one cares to listen to? Ineffective administrator? Constantly making excuses for poor performance? The right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing? Take credit for the good but pass blame for the bad? The buck doesn’t stop at your desk? There are places in society for such people. They can be bloggers, just like me. And, just like me, they shouldn’t be POTUS.

In trouble with the law? Domestic violence? Sexual harassment? Driving while intoxicated? Use of recreational drugs? Evaded taxes? Commingled personal funds with business funds, campaign funds, NGO funds, or government funds? Hired a domestic that was not eligible to work in the United States? Steered contracts for bribes and kickbacks? Hid information from FOIA requests that the public has a right to know about? Does a life of privilege protect you from reaping legal consequences that would ordinarily befall someone in less-priveleged circumstances? No one should be exempt from the law.

Utopianism? Should free markets go the way of the dinosaur? In the interests of economic egalitarianism in pursuit of a classless society through destratification, should our society and economy be centrally planned by a benevolent federal government comprised of the best thinkers within the ivory tower? Do we need to be saved from ourselves? Are we citizens irrationally prone to vote against our own best interests? Should the interests of the betterment of society trump the ambitions of individuals? Wouldn’t equality guarantee happiness for everyone? Well, I don’t call myself Buckeye RINO because I am okay with being herded like cattle.

Constitution allergy? Is the U.S. Constitution inconvenient? Should speech, religion, the press, and peaceable assembly be regulated? Should firearm ownership be confined to on-duty law enforcement and military personnel? Is the whole population comprised of suspects, thus seeking warrants just bothersome red tape? Do the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution intrude on the branches of government to the point that each branch needs work-arounds to circumvent the checks and balances? Are the people too subversive to be sovereign? Is it too hard to declare war before engaging in acts of war? Is due process too much to expect when the government has an interest in seizing private property? Shouldn’t the Senate have the same right of introducing an appropriations bill as does the House? Should special interest groups be delegated the responsibility of writing the legislation that gets introduced in Congress? If any act of Congress, on its face, is unenforceable, should the executive branch be given carte blanche to add whatever administrative code to it deemed necessary to make it enforceable? Should the new loophole of regarding the U.S. Constitution as a “living document” render the Constitution malleable to the point at which it means whatever it is expedient to say it means at any given point in time? Should any U.S. District Court judge be permitted to strike down the laws of any state, or institute new state laws, based upon the federal government’s interests and the federal government’s notions of political correctness? Is holding on to power, whether for incumbents, the federal government as a whole, the two major political parties, businesses “too big to fail,” or government bureaucracies (like the IRS, the Federal Reserve Board, the Bureau of Land Management, the DEA, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, ICE, the FEC, the EPA, etc.) so imperative that the sovereign people, the 50 states, and the U.S. Constitution must ultimately be subjugated? I cannot abide politicians who act in this manner, and maybe that’s why GOP voters have been driven toward non-politicians early on in this election cycle.

I already eliminated all the presidential candidates based on these 7 bulletpoints. Now what? Choose the least of the evils? In that case, I find myself being pushed toward Rand Paul, for the 7th bulletpoint trumps them all. I don’t think of Rand Paul as a leader. I have no data from which I can extrapolate what kind of administrator he would be. Libertarians often outsource the work of government because the government is deemed too inefficient. I am not libertarian. I think many functions of government should be kept in-house. Ideally, there’d be a chain of command within government that would hold bureaucracies accountable to the chief executive and responsive to the people, thus a political leader should reform government agencies and lead them to greater efficiency. I don’t agree with many tenets of libertarianism, legalization of recreational drugs being just one example of what I oppose. I worry that a libertarian running the government would be like steering a rudderless ship, for I think that libertarianism aspires to such an extreme of individualism that it interferes with a sense of community. I think having a sense of community is the essence of good government that rules by the consent of the governed. I think Rand Paul is isolationist. In foreign policy, I fear a President Rand Paul would project weakness. I fear that the U.S. would step aside as world leader, and that, in turn, would leave a vacuum that Russia or China or many other nations would like to fill. I must admit that I believe in American exceptionalism. I think we have the best nation on the planet, and I wish that other nations would emulate ours at least to the extent that their respective constitutions grant liberties to their respective populations that are equal to our own Bill of Rights.

What scares me about so many other candidates is that they want to sound so tough on the homeland security front that they are willing to part with key provisions of the Bill of Rights, whether it’s gun control, the tendency to attempt to muzzle the media in the face of criticism (or script, in advance, the messages delivered by the media), and a barely concealed animosity toward religion on the left; or treating all citizens as suspects on the right. Have you heard the GOP candidates’ stances on encryption? They are chilling. I believe the freedom of speech includes choosing who is and who is not the audience of any given communication. This blog is unencrypted because I hope for a wide audience for the views I state here. But if I’m talking about a sensitive personal matter, I want to communicate in complete privacy only to a specific audience of my choosing. Unfortunately, the national security hawks want every civilian communication to be a public one with plenty of ways to eavesdrop at their disposal. I never liked the so-called Patriot Act for its infringement of 4th Amendment provisions regarding warrants, or should I say the granting of policing power with either no warrants or issuance of secret warrants, thus circumventing the constitutional checks and balances upon policing power. The result is an arrangement that makes the government opaque to the people and the people transparent to the government. I think the people of this nation need to put terrorist acts in perspective. What is the ratio of terrorist-on-American crime with respect to American-on-American crime? Remember the chorus on the right side of the aisle that responded to prominent white-on-black criminal cases with the knee-jerk reaction of “What about black-on-black crime?” The casualties from terrorist-on-American crime are much fewer than non-terrorist-on-American crime. I suggest we not throw away our constitutional rights over this. Chris Christie said he puts national security first because, for hours after the attacks on the World Trade Center, he didn’t know what had become of his wife. Along that same line of reasoning, if someone close to Chris Christie, heaven forbid, should be threatened by a firearm, would that make it okay, in his mind, to rescind the 2nd Amendment? I think the 2nd Amendment is one way to ensure that terrorists will never take control of our nation. Do you remember a time when military coups were ubiquitous across the Third World? In those nations, the people lacked the arms that governments and military insurgents had. What purpose do assault weapons serve in the hands of a free people? Some of the answers to that question are that we maintain a civilian-controlled military, that we deter foreign invasion, and that we prevent the formation of a totalitarian state (or that we have the power to overthrow a totalitarian state, heaven forbid). I offered Chris Christie’s position as an example of the candidates’ rhetoric on national security, but he really shouldn’t be singled out, for candidates at the bottom of the polls, like Jim Gilmore and Martin O’Malley, all the way to the top of the polls, like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, envision a security state that must take precedence over constitutional liberties.

For the time being, I suppose I am cornered into the Rand Paul camp, and I don’t like it. I’m not a happy camper. I’m hoping candidates whose leadership skills I admire will come to their senses and take the side of the US Constitution. Barring that, watching this race unfold is like channel surfing and finding nothing intriguing on TV.

I am Daniel Jack Williamson, a graduate of The Ohio State University, a native of Ohio, a Republican voter, and a former Republican candidate. My moniker, "Buckeye RINO," is a hat-tip to my fellow conservatives who think I'm not Republican enough.